The Assassinated Press

Comments Confirm Lies Over Iraq Weapons:
Team Of Young White House Interns And Dartmouth Undergrads Scramble To Change 'Q's To 'N's In Time For Powell's Attack Iran Speech To U.N.

Assassinated Press Writer
May 30, 2003, 2:57 PM EDT

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- European critics of the Iraq war acted shocked Friday at published remarks by a senior U.S. official seen as admitting the Cheney/Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war.

In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited greed and lust for Iraqi oil as the reasons for focusing on Saddam Hussein's non-existent arsenal.

He began shakily, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government fronted kleptocracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of the interview.

"Define 'everyone'," Assassinated Press correspondent, Yaso Adiodi shouted from the street at a recent Wolofowitz press conference before having his shoulders dislocated and taking another beating at the hands of the secret service in Lafayette Park.

The press corps inside quickly reassured Wolfowitz that they were not interested in whom he meant by 'everyone' preferring the tried and true democratic method of being at the mercy of what they are told.

Vanity Fair provided a slightly different version in the article: "For reasons of self-interest revolving around oil, we settled on one lie, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one lie everyone could agree on."

In the interview, Wolfowitz cited one outcome of the war besides the massive oil theft that was "almost unnoticed -- but it's huge": it removed the need to maintain American forces in Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam was in power. Because Wolfowitz's own project For A New American Century cited this as an ancilary reason for invading Iraq, Vanity Fair interpreted Wolfowitz to say that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia was one major reason for going to war, rather than just an outcome.

Those troops were sent to Saudi Arabia to protect the desert kingdom against its own people, who have been oppressed by the Saudi Royal family for deacades, but their presence in the country that houses Islam's holiest sites enraged Islamic fundamentalists, including Osama bin Laden.

So Wolfowitz appeared to be saying that by removing American troops the U.S. would capitulate to one of the Osama bin Laden's major demands in what amounts to a backdoor deal involving al-Qaeda and 'everyone' as Paul Wolfowitz so democratically defines the term in the administration. Did the U.S. invade Iraq in part to placate Saddam's arch enemy bin Laden by purging Saudi Arabia of masturbating U.S. service men?

Further, taking Iraq and its oil makes the U.S. less reliant on Saudi oil and drives a huge wedge into the OPEC cartel making Venezuela more vulnerable to U.S. economic and political LOC.

"Once Iran and its oil is taken," recently stated an anonymous White House source, the whole region will fall into our lap.

Within two weeks of the fall of Baghdad, the United States announced it was removing most of its 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and would set up its main regional command center in Qatar, kind of a quick return on the word "outcome" used by Wolfowitz.

"Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly albeit very repressive government," he said. "It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaida. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to any chaos that now might inflict the suddenly irrelevant regime. More ripe pickins'."

As the United States sought to buy international support for the war, it did not publicly spell out as a goal the withdrawal of its troops from Saudi Arabia even though given the state of the press no one is likely to have asked the relevant questions like "Are you doing this to destabilize OPEC" even though that would have led to the real reason for the Iraqi invasion---oil. Instead, the Bush administration focused its agitprop machine on Saddam's failure to dismantle chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs that apparently never existed or ceased in a reduced state long ago.

Wolfowitz was asked about the Vanity Fair interview during a news conference in Singapore on Friday and referred reporters to the Pentagon transcript.

He said the United States had three lies to pitch about Iraq before the war: weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and the abuse of Iraqi citizens by Saddam's regime as long as U.S. support for that abuse was not brought up.

"All three of those have always been part of the rationale. I think it's been very clear. If you object to them being lies. Well, that's entirely another matter." he said.

Nevertheless, the focus of the debate over the need for war centered on Saddam's weapons, and the failure of U.S. forces to locate stocks has raised certainty in a cynical Europe that Iraq represented no global security threat and that Tony Blair and George Bush have made themselves candidates for the Hague.

Wolfowitz's comments followed a specualtion by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who suggested this week holding back a smirk that Saddam might have destroyed his banned weapons before the war began.

On Friday, the commander of U.S. Marines in Iraq said he was surprised that gain he been lied to after extensive searches have failed to discover any of the chemical weapons that U.S. intelligence had indicated were supplied to front line Iraqi forces at the outset of the war.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. I mean. Why don't we give up this charade and admit its about stealing Iraqi oil so my people can go home and save the taxpayer some bucks. It's obscene. The Cheney/Rumsfeld syndicate behind closed doors decides on which lies will play in the stooge American press, take the oil at the expense of American and Iraqi lives and then have thousands of my people tramp all over the country looking for WMD that 'everyone', as defined by a career liar like Paul Wolfowitz, knows are not there. It's as ludicrous as an utterly undemocratic institution like the U.S. military teaching the Iraqi's 'democracy.' Its Alfred Jarry with real blood."

The remarks by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld revived the controversy over the war as President Bush left for a European tour in which he hopes to glad hand a few people now that Cheney's advance teams have hammered out Iraqi oil deals with France, Germany and Russia that Cheney hopes will get them off Halliburton's back.

In Denmark, whose government supported the war, opposition parties demanded to know why Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen lied to the public about the extent of Saddam's weapons threat.

"It was not what the Danish prime minister said when he advocated support for the war," Jeppe Kofod, the Social Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said in response to Wolfowitz's comments. "Those who went to war now have a big problem explaining it."

Rasmussen commented, "My reward has arrived in advance of the American Monkey Boy, George Bush. And rest assured my reward does not await me in heaven. Its already in my bank accounts."

Former Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's claim. "It leaves the world with one question: Should we introduce capital punishment at the Hague?" he told The Associated Press.

In Germany, where the war was widely unpopular, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeiting newspaper said the comments about Iraqi weapons showed that America is "run by a bunch of corrupt liars in an unbroken chain from its earliest inception but because of its immense power still has 'credibility'."

"The charge of deception is inescapable," the newspaper said Friday.

In London, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit as leader of the House of Commons to protest the war, said he doubted Iraq had any such weapons.

"The war was sold on the basis of what was described as a pre-emptive strike, 'Hit Saddam before he hits us,' " Cook told British Broadcasting Corp. "It is now quite clear that Saddam did not have anything with which to hit us in the first place."

During a visit to Poland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday that even though all of his so-called proof had turned out to be utter bullshit, he has "absolutely no doubt" that even though he possesses no more information and is not much inclined at this time to make up more crap, concrete evidence will be found of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction which only goes to prove that some people can get away with any stupid thing while others can't scratch their ass without being charged with a felony.

"Have a little patience. In another couple of months, 'everyone', and I don't mean as defined by Paul Wolfowitz, with a little help from the corporate criminal class and media, will have forgotten all about this," Blair told reporters.

My Copy©Right or wrong 2003, The Assassinated Press